Render skin family

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it discloses that all members are expanded and reviewed and that the output is a lineup image with front and back of each member in order plus a score table. It does not mention cost, size limits, or failure modes for invalid families.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete output. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches them. The main gap is sibling routing and any prerequisite about valid family specs, but overall the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema documents the single family parameter with a doc reference. The description still adds meaning by unpacking the family shape ('base spec + variants and/or a matrix of axes'), clarifying what kinds of input the object may contain beyond the schema's terse format pointer.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (expand/review) and resource (a skin family of base spec + variants/matrix), and describes the deliverable (lineup image plus per-member score table). It is clearly distinct from texel_render (single render) and texel_save_family (persistence), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'expand a family ... and review every member', which tells the agent this is for batch/family review rather than a single render. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to texel_render, texel_save_family, or texel_validate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.